paul@aucs.UUCP (Paul Steele) (05/11/87)
I would like to here from people who has tried other approaches to
networking Machintoshes besides the slow Appletalk method. We will
be installing a lab of Macintoshes and dread the problems that "slowtalk"
will cause our users. We want 15-20 stations, with hopes for future
expansion, and our experience indicate that the 230Kbps offered by
Appletalk is simply not adequate for heavy network usage.
What we are most interested in are Ethernet (or token ring) controllers
that will connect to the SCSI controller or to the SE's expansion slot.
If I get sufficient response, I'll summarize for the network. Thanks.
UUCP: {seismo|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Paul
BITNET: {Paul|phs}@Acadia
Internet: {Paul|phs}%Acadia.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
PHONEnet: (902) 542-2201x587zrm@mit-eddie.UUCP (05/12/87)
In article <347@aucs.UUCP> paul@aucs.UUCP (Paul Steele) writes: >I would like to here from people who has tried other approaches to >networking Machintoshes besides the slow Appletalk method. We will >be installing a lab of Macintoshes and dread the problems that "slowtalk" >will cause our users. We want 15-20 stations, with hopes for future... A common problem. Every one of my consulting clients with more that 10 Machintoshes has asked me the same question. 1) Appletalk performs about as well as a floppy disk, so it is adequate for most file-serving operations, but not those involving big databases. It is certainly fast enough for E-mail, file copying, and most transaction processing. A combination of Appletalk and an Ethernet backbone would expand the area the network could cover and keep the sub-nets from being overloaded. 2) Networks that cost more than $200-$300 per node are not cost competitive with local hard disks, which are down to $600 per 20Mb. You won't be able to beat that with a combination of faster networking and file servers with large, presumably lower cost per Mb, disks. Hypothetical Ethernet ----------- Adapter $200/node x 50 nodes $10,000 Transciever $150/node x 50 nodes $ 7,500 Cabling $100/node x 50 nodes $ 5,000 500Mb disk server x 2 = 20Mb/node $20,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $42,500 AppleTalk ---------- Isolation transformer $40/node x 50 nodes $ 2,000 Cabling $20/node x 50 nodes $ 1,000 20Mb Hard Disk $600/node x 50 nodes $30,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $33,000 3) Items 1) and 2) probably explain why there are no Ethernet systems for the Macintosh Plus or SE. There will probably be more than one Ethernet adapter for the Macintosh II, for which the economics of mass storge are very different. NOTE: My assumptions about the Ethernet are a bit iffy -- I have never seen an Ethernet file server serve 25 machines and do it well. File serving only works when big disks are part of the equation anyway, for performance reasons or because you really need a 500Mb volume. Otherwise small cheap disks are it. The comparison also avoids the robustness issue: what happens when one of the few big servers goes down? The recipe for a university's Macintosh net? Since they get university pricing, the Macintosh SE with the 20Mb hard disk is the right machine. Use Appletalk, but not the Appletalk cabling. Use Faralon Phone Net cabling. Use Kinetics Fastpath Appletalk-to-Ethernet adapters to build an Ethernet backbone. This will yield, by far, the best performance. If cost is a big issue, the Ethernet backbone can be omitted until the network grows beyond 2 subnets with 20 machines each. If you need to distribute course materials, put an 80Mb disk on one node. I read in a trade rag that Apple "does not believe in diskless nodes." or something to that effect. The economics of small cheap disks is probably the reason why. -Zigurd --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zigurd Mednieks MURSU Corporation P.O. Box 1894 Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 522-9035 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mdr@reed.UUCP (Mike Rutenberg) (05/13/87)
Zigurd R. Mednieks writes: > The recipe for a university's Macintosh net? Since they get university > pricing, the Macintosh SE with the 20Mb hard disk is the right machine. > I read in a trade rag that Apple "does not believe in diskless nodes." > or something to that effect. The economics of small cheap disks is > probably the reason why. For an private machine, a local hard disk is a wonderful idea - It makes things faster. Using shared machines with hard disks is a totally different story. You have to make sure that a public machine is available to each user in a "clean" state, so that everything they expect to be there is, and there are no weird surprises. File servers allow the person who is using a public machine to have private files, and to feel confident that what they did the last time has not been changed, moved, deleted or poked through. It also allows them to use a different machine as needed, because the files are not stored on a specific public machine. This is important when you don't have enough resources to get everyone their own box. Mike -- Reed College -- Portland, Oregon -- 503/774-9192
paul@aucs.UUCP (Paul Steele) (05/13/87)
In article 5777@eddie.MIT.EDU, Zigurd Mednieks replied with some
suggestions on my posting concerning faster networks for the Macintosh.
He gives some cost comparisons between an Appletalk network and a
hypothetical Ethernet Macintosh network, and comes up with the
solution that it is better to use SE's with 20M hard disks networked
using PhoneNet for file sharing/printer purposes rather than using a
larger file server on a faster network.
While I agree with the use of PhoneNet instead of Appletalk cabling,
I don't think his solution is very well suited to a university environment.
We want to provide our users with a variety of software packages for
doing the usual wordprocessing, graphics, programming, etc type of
applications. With a shared hard disk, the programs can all be put
on the server and made available to users via appropriate network
commands. In my opinion, it is impossible to manage software on
20 different hard disks and keep the machines always functional.
Users fill untended hard disks very rapidly, and often delete things that
shouldn't be deleted. It would certainly provide the best performance,
but by far the worst management headaches.
We have a 60 station IBM network here at Acadia. It uses Arcnet/Coax
cabling and has 3 file servers with 60Megs each (not enough). Students
keep their work on floppies and can access any software they are permitted
to by the network manager. The hard disks are safe from student abuse
since they only have read permission for most of the programs.
Is Apple/Macintoshes that far behind in networking that a similar
approach couldn't be achieved with 20 to 30 Mac's, or even more
as campus wide networks become more common? I love my Mac SE (with HD),
but as far as networking is concerned, Mac's seem to have a long
way to go.
UUCP: {seismo|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Paul
BITNET: {Paul|phs}@Acadia
Internet: {Paul|phs}%Acadia.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
PHONEnet: (902) 542-2201x587fdot@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Tom Lippincott) (05/14/87)
On the subject of protecting files from innocent but dangerous users, a partial solution would be to set the lock (and perhaps protect) bits, and then use ResEdit to move out of reach the "Locked" check box in the Finder's "Get Info" dialog. This doesn't make the file anything like secure, but, at least for applications, should prevent most accidental tampering. --Tom Lippincott ..ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!fdot "We're not implementing security on sphinx."
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (05/16/87)
> >While I agree with the use of PhoneNet instead of Appletalk cabling, >I don't think his solution is very well suited to a university environment. >We want to provide our users with a variety of software packages for >doing the usual wordprocessing, graphics, programming, etc type of >applications. With a shared hard disk, the programs can all be put >on the server and made available to users via appropriate network >commands. In my opinion, it is impossible to manage software on >20 different hard disks and keep the machines always functional. >Users fill untended hard disks very rapidly, and often delete things that >shouldn't be deleted. It would certainly provide the best performance, >but by far the worst management headaches. > > >Is Apple/Macintoshes that far behind in networking that a similar >approach couldn't be achieved with 20 to 30 Mac's, or even more >as campus wide networks become more common? I love my Mac SE (with HD), >but as far as networking is concerned, Mac's seem to have a long >way to go. Here at caltech we have the opposite situation. The PC lab has 40 pcs each with their own hard disks which are continually reset with Fastback. The Mac lab on the other hand is set up to run off Apple's fileserver, AppleShare. Personally, I would rather have 15 hard disks, one for each mac. Unfortunately, Apple gave us neither 15 hard disks nor 15 external drives. Thus, the fileserver seems to get a real workout. Personally, I don't feel the mac is behind as far networking is concerned. In fact when one considers that all macs come complete with a network card installed, (as opposed to the PC's). THe real limitation of the Mac as far as networking is concerned is the speed of the Apple talk network. (the file server ranges from a little slower then a floppy to a lot slower) the other limitation is the face that it is impossible to boot from a fileserver, meaning you always need at least one floppy which has the correct software on it. _ONe_ fileserver is nice as a distribution point, but individual hard disks are better. Pierce Wetter Them Toad Suckers How 'bout them toad suckers, ain't they clods? Sittin' there suckin' them green toady frogs! Suckin' them hop toads, suckin' them chunkers, Suckin' them a leapy type, suckin' them flunkers. Look at them toad suckers, ain't they snappy? Suckin' them bog frogs sure make's 'em happy! Them hugger mugger toad suckers, way down south, Stickin' them sucky toads in they mouth! How to be a toad sucker, no way to duck it, Get yourself a toad, rear back, and suck it! -- Mason Williams -------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu --------------------------------------------
paul@aucs.UUCP (05/19/87)
In article <2706@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Pierce T. Wetter) writes: >Personally, I don't feel the mac >is behind as far networking is concerned. In fact when one considers that all >macs come complete with a network card installed, (as opposed to the PC's). THe >real limitation of the Mac as far as networking is concerned is the speed of the >Apple talk network. (the file server ranges from a little slower then a floppy >to a lot slower) the other limitation is the face that it is impossible to boot >from a fileserver, meaning you always need at least one floppy which has the >correct software on it. > _ONe_ fileserver is nice as a distribution point, but individual hard disks >are better. There certainly seems to be a lot of disagreement on the best way to network Macs and set up a usable lab. In my opinion, individual hard disks are just not workable in a typical public environment. It removes file safety and privacy which is essential in a network. Its not quite as easy to say DEL *.* in a Mac environment, but that doesn't mean that users won't find something worse to do. It would be nice if Macs could be booted from a file server like many of the PC networks, but servers are still necessary to easily manage a network of Macs. As far as the Mac's built-in networking capabilities, its adequate for sharing printers in a reasonably sized network, but if you want to share a hard disk, imagewriter, and laser writer among 20 macs, I think you'd be looking at less than floppy performance. Its nice to have built-in networking, but I would like to have the option of popping in my own network card to get better performance. It would have been great if the SE had come with built-in Ethernet or Token-ring... :-) UUCP: {seismo|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Paul BITNET: {Paul|phs}@Acadia Internet: {Paul|phs}%Acadia.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU PHONEnet: (902) 542-2201x587
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) (05/20/87)
In article <354@aucs.UUCP> paul@aucs.UUCP (Paul Steele) writes: > >There certainly seems to be a lot of disagreement on the best way to network >Macs and set up a usable lab. In my opinion, individual hard disks are just >not workable in a typical public environment. It removes file safety and >privacy which is essential in a network. Its not quite as easy to say >DEL *.* in a Mac environment, but that doesn't mean that users won't find >something worse to do. With a _fast_ tape backup unit all the lab maintainer has to do is to restore the hard disk once a week. It's not that bad. The PC consultant at Tech does it all the time. Another even faster alternative is a master hard disk which can be connected to each mac in turn and copied. Also, give people credit for not acting like complete a-holes. Most people will not seriously damage a system just because its there. The people who will trash things on accident will not be such a problem that every two days the hard disks need to be reset. Once a week is fine, if not a little high. The ultimate in file safety is your own personal floppy. > >its adequate for sharing printers in a reasonably sized network, but if >you want to share a hard disk, imagewriter, and laser writer among 20 >macs, I think you'd be looking at less than floppy performance. Its >nice to have built-in networking, but I would like to have the option >of popping in my own network card to get better performance. > The set up we have here at tech is 8 SE's, 7 Mac+'s, 3 hard disks and 2 laserwriters. Performance is resonable, besides does "floppy performance" consider disk swap times? Also even if every mac had its own ethernet, token-ring, (insert your favorite network here), card built in, I would still prefer individual disks. The benifits of ind. Disks. as compared with networked disks far outweigh any tampering hassles. (Networked disks have their own set of problems, speciffically giving people accounts, regulating disk usage, etc.) Pierce Wetter A man goes to a tailor to try on a new custom-made suit. The first thing he notices is that the arms are too long. "No problem," says the tailor. "Just bend them at the elbow and hold them out in front of you. See, now it's fine." "But the collar is up around my ears!" "It's nothing. Just hunch your back up a little ... no, a little more ... that's it." "But I'm stepping on my cuffs!" the man cries in desperation. "Nu, bend you knees a little to take up the slack. There you go. Look in the mirror -- the suit fits perfectly." So, twisted like a pretzel, the man lurches out onto the street. Reba and Florence see him go by. "Oh, look," says Reba, "that poor man!" "Yes," says Florence, "but what a beautiful suit." -- Arthur Naiman, "Every Goy's Guide to Yiddish" -------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu --------------------------------------------